Software

are having a major panic. Daffodils et al flowering while there is still glut from those damn southerner's efforts.
Apparently the price is very low, compared to what they expected and they are losing money big style.

... the one you want to be right.

And either interpretation could (and of course, no doubt "would", according to the individual) be correct.

If you want to believe it, that is.

Polar bears are a potentially threatened species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

Here's something else that is right:

People will form their conclusion, and then work backwards looking for justification and/or wording to support that conclusion.

People who study such things are paid to do it.

But who pays them, and why does it continue? If a person has a financial interest in something, shouldn't that either disqualify that person and/or place a cloud of suspicion over that person's motives? After all, nobody believes "big business" or "big oil", and they discount what they say. Why shouldn't the same apply across the board?